then Viacom in their reply can say "Oooops, you know, you're right, we're not, our bad, we're sorry, we'll pay reparations. And now, Google, since you've agreed it's a bad thing we've both done, you can pay reparations to us for your infraction too".
How is it bad for Google if they point out that iFilm became compliant in a way that Viacom did not allow YouTube?
I don't know about the admissability of such evidence, but as for the whole idea of snitching on your fellow citizen it's been known to be tremendously effective.
It was a major portion of study in college for us from 1990. Presented by a professor of psychology that was also a member of Stanford University. Call me lazy, but I dont feel like pulling the documents for you. Go out to the internet and find them youself. Columbia is not the same as Challenger.
Of course, by putting it this way, there's a clear implication that these people are somehow connected to the illegal drugs trade.
Well, it's in law-enforcement's interest to consider everybody to be guilty of something. The funny thing is how he says "in this case..." as if they go on mixtape raids all the time. Likely he was striking a similarity between the mixtape raid and raiding the houses and offices of other brown people.
(all that has to happen is to have a file successfully ripped once and it's all over the internet)
This is old-guard thinking, that there is a such thing as "all over the internet," as if music can be spilled. It makes as much sense as "all over the radio," which perhaps some execs were afraid of in the age of shellac and 45s. There's a perceptual shift in thinking of internet proliferation as something good rather than something bad, and it's the conservative control freaks and cultural authoritarians who say that it's bad. Control is a profit center, so they're going to be reluctant to give up the mad buggy-whip dollars they're raking in at the moment.
But the crucial disconnect in this story is that "music execs" are against DRM, which "labels" are for it. Well, who decides what the labels' policies are other than the execs?!
I actually just started using VLC and am overall pretty happy with it. The only thing I don't like is some videos tend to temporarily get distorted when fast seeking through a video.
Those are probably WMV's or another of the Microsoft codecs which seem to have bad support for seeking and random access.
Fine, you want to play patronizing pedant? "Kill" is a transitive verb, which means it requires a subject and a direct object. This isn't clear to you because the title is expressed in passive voice: "Woman killed (by what?)" which obscures the fact that there is a necessary agency implied in the word "kill". Things kill other things and things are killed by other things. This is an aspect of language usually learned by the time someone has their first kiss. Apologies for my tone if you have not reached this stage of your life.
The title only mentions the woman, which leaves us with the direct object. "What could it be" you ask? Well, if you read the story, it seems water is chiefly implicated. Was the water forced down her throat? No. Did she drink the water by herself? It seems so. Can you think of another word for dying from too much water? Can you think of another word for dying by your own hand? Equally retarded, both of those words would be just as inflammatory ("to cause to appear more significant") as the title above.
As a tiny compromise, would it not actually be more clear to say "Woman Dies In Wii-Related Competition?" It doesn't leave anything out, it doesn't lead to any assumptions beyond the story, and it doesn't cause people to stand up for untenable grammatical stances.
That is the most deceptive headline you have successfully posted ever.
Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly were the first successful echo chamber journalists. Inflammatory rhetoric gets you ad dollars, so there's no reason avoid sullying the credibility of online journalism when it's profitable to lower your standards. Skuttle is an idiot, but the/. editors are the real culprits.
In fact, a service org probably has RAIDed drives and automated and offsite backup systems superior to what most people are doing on thier own... if they're doing it at all.
I'm having trouble resolving this comment with the topic of the thread, namely "Lost GMail Emails."
So, is this an ad for Yedda or Wondir? I can't tell, but the fact that Ask Metafilter isn't in the running suggests some kind of stacking or faulty methodology.
Slashdot Mirror
what do they call it when they offer the universites a hold harmless payment to universitys for cash?
Extortion.
then Viacom in their reply can say "Oooops, you know, you're right, we're not, our bad, we're sorry, we'll pay reparations. And now, Google, since you've agreed it's a bad thing we've both done, you can pay reparations to us for your infraction too".
How is it bad for Google if they point out that iFilm became compliant in a way that Viacom did not allow YouTube?
Well they are effectively asking the copyright holders to police their site.
Which is the way it's always been. I doubt that a single copyright infringement case has ever been initiated by the defendant.
And, as others have pointed out, the DMCA lays out Viacom's responsibilities quite clearly.
Too big-brotherish? Too much vigilantism?
I don't know about the admissability of such evidence, but as for the whole idea of snitching on your fellow citizen it's been known to be tremendously effective.
The best way is to be straight and direct to the person in the eyes of all, and avoid stupid games, sugar coating, allusions and eupemisims.
I see the monstrous head of nerdly revenge rears its head. Trying to continue a chain of humiliation or something?
So people who are hell-bent on not getting their kids vaccinated can still do so.
It's interesting that you use "hell-bent" in this context.
It was a major portion of study in college for us from 1990. Presented by a professor of psychology that was also a member of Stanford University. Call me lazy, but I dont feel like pulling the documents for you. Go out to the internet and find them youself.
Columbia is not the same as Challenger.
Oh right, because paying $150 per month for 10 programs makes them so much more obtainable...
They have to react to Google's announcement yesterday with an unworkable plan. This is how they always react to the innovations of others.
Of course, by putting it this way, there's a clear implication that these people are somehow connected to the illegal drugs trade.
Well, it's in law-enforcement's interest to consider everybody to be guilty of something. The funny thing is how he says "in this case..." as if they go on mixtape raids all the time. Likely he was striking a similarity between the mixtape raid and raiding the houses and offices of other brown people.
If all of that wasn't enough, efficiency is overrated. I can't say that I've ever had a complaint about "DNS Server performance."
I'll leave it to someone else to disassemble your retarded spamfilter example.
(all that has to happen is to have a file successfully ripped once and it's all over the internet)
This is old-guard thinking, that there is a such thing as "all over the internet," as if music can be spilled. It makes as much sense as "all over the radio," which perhaps some execs were afraid of in the age of shellac and 45s. There's a perceptual shift in thinking of internet proliferation as something good rather than something bad, and it's the conservative control freaks and cultural authoritarians who say that it's bad. Control is a profit center, so they're going to be reluctant to give up the mad buggy-whip dollars they're raking in at the moment.
But the crucial disconnect in this story is that "music execs" are against DRM, which "labels" are for it. Well, who decides what the labels' policies are other than the execs?!
It's like complaining that PCs aren't ready because they won't run your CICS applications.
Alright, who's the SPF-PC hacker who is going to chime in here?
It's not my job to accommodate the pathological fears of others.
Well you're not Alberto Gonzales now, are you?
Referral URLs are weak.
You've never heard of someone "killing themselves"?
Are you saying that it would have been good (better?) journalism to say "Woman Commits Suicide In Wii-Related Contest"?
At any rate, I'm explaining something I tried to cover in my comment:
"Can you think of another word for dying by your own hand?"
I actually just started using VLC and am overall pretty happy with it. The only thing I don't like is some videos tend to temporarily get distorted when fast seeking through a video.
Those are probably WMV's or another of the Microsoft codecs which seem to have bad support for seeking and random access.
Who would produce something on this new disc that early adopters could not use?
This one goes to 51.
Kill: "to cause the death of"
Fine, you want to play patronizing pedant? "Kill" is a transitive verb, which means it requires a subject and a direct object. This isn't clear to you because the title is expressed in passive voice: "Woman killed (by what?)" which obscures the fact that there is a necessary agency implied in the word "kill". Things kill other things and things are killed by other things. This is an aspect of language usually learned by the time someone has their first kiss. Apologies for my tone if you have not reached this stage of your life.
The title only mentions the woman, which leaves us with the direct object. "What could it be" you ask? Well, if you read the story, it seems water is chiefly implicated. Was the water forced down her throat? No. Did she drink the water by herself? It seems so. Can you think of another word for dying from too much water? Can you think of another word for dying by your own hand? Equally retarded, both of those words would be just as inflammatory ("to cause to appear more significant") as the title above.
As a tiny compromise, would it not actually be more clear to say "Woman Dies In Wii-Related Competition?" It doesn't leave anything out, it doesn't lead to any assumptions beyond the story, and it doesn't cause people to stand up for untenable grammatical stances.
The fact the matter is that the headline is correct.
Was she really killed?
That is the most deceptive headline you have successfully posted ever.
/. editors are the real culprits.
Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly were the first successful echo chamber journalists. Inflammatory rhetoric gets you ad dollars, so there's no reason avoid sullying the credibility of online journalism when it's profitable to lower your standards. Skuttle is an idiot, but the
Indeed. "Ed is the standard editor" like Windows is the standard OS!
Federal white-collar prison, where I hear they have conjugal visits, or federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison?
Conjugal visits? Mmmm. Not that I know of.
In fact, a service org probably has RAIDed drives and automated and offsite backup systems superior to what most people are doing on thier own... if they're doing it at all.
I'm having trouble resolving this comment with the topic of the thread, namely "Lost GMail Emails."
So, is this an ad for Yedda or Wondir? I can't tell, but the fact that Ask Metafilter isn't in the running suggests some kind of stacking or faulty methodology.
was it the "roflcopter" that tipped you off?